Re: revised Proposed Charter



On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:49 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

I for one would be rather dismayed if
it did not lend itself well to reputation/accredation
systems. It seems to me that the risk is pretty low,
so divide and conquer seems more prudent.

I also agree the risk is low. DKIM will have plenty related toensuring defense issues are addressed.


-Doug

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
RE: revised Proposed Charter, (continued) RE: revised Proposed Charter, Kuhtz, Christian Re: revised Proposed Charter, Arvel Hathcock RE: revised Proposed Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: revised Proposed Charter, Arvel Hathcock Re: revised Proposed Charter, Andrew Newton RE: revised Proposed Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: revised Proposed Charter, Dave Crocker RE: revised Proposed Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: revised Proposed Charter, Dave Crocker Re: revised Proposed Charter, Michael Thomas Re: revised Proposed Charter, Douglas Otis <= RE: revised Proposed Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: revised Proposed Charter, Earl Hood Re: revised Proposed Charter, Andrew Newton Re: revised Proposed Charter, Dave Crocker Re: revised Proposed Charter, Thomas Roessler Re: revised Proposed Charter, Douglas Otis Re: revised Proposed Charter, Andrew Newton Re: revised Proposed Charter, Dave Crocker Re: revised Proposed Charter, Andrew Newton Re: revised Proposed Charter, Dave Crocker

Previous by Date:	RE: revised Proposed Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Next by Date:	RE: DKIM: c=simple is aspirational, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Previous by Thread:	Re: revised Proposed Charter, Michael Thomas
Next by Thread:	RE: revised Proposed Charter, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]